Chinese Exclusion and the Mccreary Act of 1893

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Chinese Exclusion and the Mccreary Act of 1893 23.09 - Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the Jim Crow Era (Do Not Delete) 6/14/2016 5:16 PM Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the Jim Crow Era: Chinese Exclusion and the McCreary Act of 1893 Gabriel J. Chin† & Daniel K. Tu†† I. THE PROBLEM OF CHINESE IMMIGRATION ............................................... 42 II. WHY DID CONGRESS GRANT RELIEF? .................................................... 46 A. Executive Enforcement Policy and the Practical Impossibility of Deportation. ..................................................... 46 B. Anti-Racist Views in Congress .................................................... 51 C. Popular Constitutionalism: Due Process in Spite of the Court .... 53 D. Missionaries and the Institutional Church ................................... 57 E. A Relief Bill Becomes an Enforcement Bill ................................ 59 F. Civil Rights For African Americans ............................................. 60 G. Diplomatic and Trade Concerns .................................................. 61 H. Federalism and State Choice ........................................................ 65 III. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 66 For ways that are dark, And for tricks that are vain, The heathen Chinese is peculiar— Which the same I would rise to explain.1 How the law should deal with large groups of deportable non-citizens is both a venerable question of federal legal policy and a major controversy today. This Article examines the first debate in the United States over the choice between mass deportation of those in violation of law, and compromising the firmness of the law, a problem involving Chinese migrants that arose over a century ago. Since the founding of the United States, immigration and citizenship law contemplated a white America. The Naturalization Act of 1790, signed DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15779/Z38ZW0J Copyright © 2016 held by Gabriel J. Chin & Daniel K. Tu † Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law; Affiliated Faculty, UC Davis Temporary Migration Cluster & Aoki Center for Critical Race and Nation Studies. Thanks to David Bernstein, and Jonathan Weinberg for comments, and Dean Kevin Johnson and the UC Davis School of law for support for this project. †† J.D., UC Davis School of Law; Associate, Yim and Zhou Attorneys at Law. 1. 25 CONG. REC. 2453 (1893) (remarks of Rep. Bartlett, quoting Bret Harte poem “The heathen Chinee”). 39 23.09 - Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the Jim Crow Era (DO NOT DELETE) 6/14/2016 5:16 PM 40 ASIAN AMERICAN LAW JOURNAL [Volume 23:39 by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams, limited the privilege to “free white persons.”2 As an act of the First Congress, the 1790 law was approved by many of the Constitution’s Framers.3 Racial restriction remained part of naturalization law until 1952.4 Federal immigration law, like naturalization law, was race-conscious. It developed and grew in the second half of the nineteenth century as a means of excluding Asians.5 A major step was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.6 General numerical limitation would not become a part of federal immigration law until 1921; before then, in principle, any number of immigrants could come, although there were “qualitative” exclusions based on an immigrant’s health or criminal record. Yet Chinese workers were not just limited or subject to quotas; instead, they were excluded absolutely on the basis of race.7 Congress expanded and tightened racial exclusion over time. In 1892, the Geary Act,8 authored by Representative Thomas Geary (D-CA), required Chinese, and only Chinese, to register with the U.S. government on pain of imprisonment and deportation.9 On the advice of distinguished attorneys, almost all Chinese declined to register.10 However, the Supreme Court upheld the Geary Act’s registration requirement in Fong Yue Ting v. United States.11 As a result, Chinese people and the government faced a dramatic problem: U.S. policy deemed Chinese laborers undesirable and prohibited their future entry into the country. Almost all Chinese laborers currently in the United States had become deportable because they chose not to comply with the law: they were unauthorized migrants.12 This was not a racially egalitarian era for Congress; another major accomplishment of the then-sitting 53rd Congress was the repeal of 2. Act of Mar. 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103 (repealed 1795). 3. Michael Bhargava, The First Congress Canon and the Supreme Court’s Use of History, 94 CAL. L. REV. 1745, 1745 (2006) (noting that the Supreme Court sometimes give special weight “to the actions of the First Congress in resolving a modern-day legal dilemma”). 4. Gabriel J. Chin, Segregation’s Last Stronghold: Race Discrimination and the Constitutional Law of Immigration, 46 UCLA L. REV. 1, 14 (1998). 5. Id. at 13–14. 6. Id. at 13. 7. Id. at 234. 8. Act of May 5, 1892, ch. 60, 27 Stat. 25 (1892) (“Geary Act”). 9. Id. The Court later upheld both detention to facilitate deportation as well as criminalization of immigration violations. Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 235 (1896) (“We think it clear that detention or temporary confinement, as part of the means necessary to give effect to the provisions for the exclusion or expulsion of aliens, would be valid . So, too, we think it would be plainly competent for congress to declare the act of an alien in remaining unlawfully within the United States to be an offense punishable by fine or imprisonment, if such offense were to be established by a judicial trial.”). 10. See notes 37–50, infra, and accompanying text. 11. 149 U.S. 698 (1893). 12. As Rep. Geary explained “the only Chinese here and legally entitled to be here . were those who had already registered, because under the operation of the law of 1892, the status of all those who did not register was fixed by providing that they should be held to be illegally in the country on the 5th day of May, 1893.” 25 CONG. REC. APP. 234 (1893). 23.09 - Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the Jim Crow Era (DO NOT DELETE) 6/14/2016 5:16 PM 2016] COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM 41 Reconstruction-era laws protecting the African American franchise,13 which was part of a larger national project aimed at excluding African Americans from politics.14 As the great historian Oscar Handlin explained: “By the end of the [nineteenth] century the pattern of racist practices and ideas seemed fully developed: the Orientals were to be totally excluded; the Negroes were to live in a segregated enclave; the Indians were to be confined to reservations as permanent wards of the nation . .”15 Nonwhites of whatever race or ethnicity had been effectively subordinated by law. The connection between Western racists and Southern white supremacists was explicit. For example, during the debate on the McCreary Act, Representative John Williams (D-MS) explained: “I am willing to trust the motives, the manhood, the generosity, the capacity for self- government, and the capacity for governing inferior races, inherent in the white people of the Pacific Slope, just as I have appealed to them, and to others, to trust the capacity for self-government of the people of the South.”16 In the West as well as the South, minorities were to be excluded from political participation. Anti-Chinese legislators also made the connection between equality for African Americans and the presence of Chinese. Geary noted that he opposed a voting rights bill, a “bill having its origin, no doubt, in the same place as this, which was directed against your people of the South, against your society and the right of the white man to be supreme in the sunny South.”17 He explained that anti-Chinese legislators in the West voted for white supremacy in the South: The two Senators from my own golden State, from the State of Nevada, Republicans from Colorado and Oregon, all joined hands with you and said whenever an attack is made by any alien race upon our brother white men of the South, or upon white civilizations anywhere, you can command our friendship and support . We freely perceived, as brethren, 13. Act of Feb. 8, 1894, 28 Stat. 36. 14. Gabriel J. Chin & Randy Wagner, The Tyranny of the Minority: Jim Crow and the Counter- Majoritarian Difficulty, 43 HARV. C.R.-C.L. L. REV. 65 (2008). 15. OSCAR HANDLIN, RACE AND NATIONALITY IN AMERICAN LIFE 48 (1957). He also memorably wrote: “Once I thought to write a history of the immigrants in America. Then I discovered that the immigrants were American history.” OSCAR HANDLIN, THE UPROOTED 3 (1st ed. 1951). 16. 25 CONG REC. 2527 (1893). See also id. at 2528 (“I am glad to see that early in the history of this Chinese problem [the white people of the Pacific Slope] have been wiser than we were in the early history of the negro problem in the South, when the small number of Africans on this continent constituted a condition other than that with which we are now confronted, and that they are willing to take the question up frankly and deal with it boldly and resolutely.”); id. at 2498 (remarks of Rep. Milliken) (“Is it not true that there is no instance in the history of mankind where any two of the five distinct types of the human race have ever lived together in peace, harmony, and prosperity? Is not that a fact? We have tried to assimilate with the Indian. And we have had a continual conflict, which will end when the Indian goes out of existence. We have tried to assimilate with the Ethiopian; we have had four years of war; and still the end has not come. And now, when the Mongolian lands upon our shore, there is trouble with him.”). 17. 25 CONG. REC. 236 (1893). 23.09 - Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the Jim Crow Era (DO NOT DELETE) 6/14/2016 5:16 PM 42 ASIAN AMERICAN LAW JOURNAL [Volume 23:39 our duty in upholding the idea that white civilization must be dominant on this continent.18 In this environment, one might reasonably assume that racial restrictionists would seize any opportunity to rid the country of a group whose presence, in their belief, would harm the body politic.
Recommended publications
  • Race, Religion and Nationality in Immigration Selection: 120 Years After the Chinese Exclusion Case Liav Orgad
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 2010 Race, Religion and Nationality in Immigration Selection: 120 Years After the Chinese Exclusion Case Liav Orgad Theodore Ruthizer Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Orgad, Liav and Ruthizer, Theodore, "Race, Religion and Nationality in Immigration Selection: 120 Years After the Chinese Exclusion Case" (2010). Constitutional Commentary. 635. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/635 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Constitutional Commentary collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact lenzx009@umn.edu. Article RACE, RELIGION AND NATIONALITY IN IMMIGRATION SELECTION: 120 YEARS AFTER THE CHINESE EXCLUSION CASE Liav Orgad* Theodore Ruthizer** INTRODUCTION 120 years ago, in May 1889, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that "the power of exclusion of foreigners being an incident of sovereignty ... cannot be granted away or restrained. "1 Sixty years later, in January 1950, at the height of the Cold War, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the plenary power doctrine by holding that "it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien."2 Another sixty years have passed and more recently, in February 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that "a nation-state has the inherent right to exclude or admit foreigners * Radzyner School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Excluded! Chinese Immigration to the United States Inquiry and Investigation NAGC Curriculum Award-Winner
    PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING Engagement IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES Excluded! Chinese Immigration to the United States Inquiry and Investigation NAGC Curriculum Award-Winner Definition Teacher Manual Shelagh A. Gallagher Dana L. Plowden Resolution Debriefing Royal Fireworks Press Unionville, New York Problem Narrative: The Storyline of Excluded! Ideally, the direction of a Problem-Based Learning unit is decided through the questions students ask. To some extent, this is made manageable by the structure of the opening scenario presented during Problem Engagement. The opening scenario is carefully designed to point students in the direction of some predictable questions. For example, it would be hard to avoid asking questions about why so many Chinese immigrated to America in the late 1800s or why American citizens grew so prejudicial against them. The narrative below and the lesson plans in this unit respond to these more predictable questions and address other desirable learning outcomes. They also provide a helpful guide for teachers new to PBL. Experienced PBL teachers are encouraged to use this unit as a framework, selecting lessons that fit the students’ questions (and, as above, many should fit) and adding other lessons to address other questions. It would be easy, for instance, to integrate discussion of how countries should approach establishing immigration laws and requirements for citizenship, or to increase emphasis on racism or poor working conditions. Problem Engagement During Problem Engagement, students are introduced to the situation they will be exploring during the unit. As the problem opens, students take on the role of Congressmen and -women from California in 1892. A memo crosses their desk, asking for their final comment on a bill that is about to be submitted for debate.
    [Show full text]
  • Chinese Exclusion Act Activity
    Chinese Exclusion Act Activity Inquiry Question What factors led to the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882? Read the Chinese Exclusion Act and examine the sources that illustrate views of Chinese immigrants during the late 19th century in the United States. Interpret what you see to explain how these views led to the passage of the 1882 act. Clarifying Questions When did Chinese immigrants come to the United States and where did they reside upon arrival? What was the Chinese Exclusion Act? Why did it target Chinese immigration specifically? What role did Chinese immigrants play in the late­19th­century economy in the U.S.? Vocabulary Chinese Exclusion Act: a law passed in 1882 that prohibited Chinese laborers from entering the U.S. and was the first legislation barring a specific ethnic group from coming to the U.S. as laborers. The act was finally repealed in 1943. organized labor: referred to the union organization that began to emerge in the U.S. in the 1870s and often developed to organize a specific type of skilled labor. transcontinental railroad: the first railway to link the east and west coast of the United States and was completed in 1869. Workingmen's Party of California: a political labor organization established in 1877 with a staunch anti­Chinese platform. Background Information In 1848, the discovery of gold in California drew thousands of hopeful prospectors to San Francisco and surrounding areas. Among the fortune hunters who migrated to California were a large number of Chinese immigrants, who also took jobs in the service industry— as cooks or launderers, for example—in the hopes of amassing some wealth to take back to China.
    [Show full text]
  • "The Chinese Exclusion Act" with Erika Lee
    "The Chinese Exclusion Act" with Erika Lee [00:00:05] Welcome to The Seattle Public Library’s podcasts of author readings and library events. Library podcasts are brought to you by The Seattle Public Library and Foundation. To learn more about our programs and podcasts, visit our web site at w w w dot SPL dot org. To learn how you can help the library foundation support The Seattle Public Library go to foundation dot SPL dot org [00:00:35] I want to welcome everybody to The Seattle Public Library for tonight's program. The Chinese Exclusion Act with Erika Lee My name is Orlando Lugo and I am a community engagement associate right here at the Seattle Central Library. I want to begin by acknowledging that we are on too much land on this Indigenous Peoples Day. That's very important especially today. We all know our country has a complicated history that dates back to the landing at Plymouth. So let's just sit with that. [00:01:11] I'm going to cede the podium to Susan chanson who's going to do some brief remarks. [00:01:17] Thank you Orlando Good evening everyone. My name is Susan chanson and on behalf of the Center for Asian American media I am serving as their outreach manager for specifically the Chinese Exclusion Act film the clips that you'll be seeing this evening are an excerpt from a larger documentary that will actually be coming to PBS next year through American Experience here on KCET yes.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record—Senate S3451
    May 26, 2011 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S3451 SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS Mink, the first Asian-American Congress- (2) encourages the celebration during woman, and Norman Y. Mineta, the first Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month of Asian-American member of a presidential the significant contributions Asian-Ameri- SENATE RESOLUTION 200—RECOG- cabinet, have made significant strides in the cans and Pacific Islanders have made to the NIZING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF political and military realms; United States; and THE DESIGNATION OF THE Whereas the Presidential Cabinet of the (3) recognizes that the Asian-American and Obama Administration includes a record 3 Pacific Islander community strengthens and MONTH OF MAY AS ASIAN/PA- Asian-Americans, including Secretary of En- enhances the rich diversity of the United CIFIC AMERICAN HERITAGE ergy Steven Chu, Secretary of Commerce States. MONTH Gary Locke, and Secretary of Veterans Af- f Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. INOUYE, fairs Eric Shinseki; Whereas in 2011, the Congressional Asian SENATE RESOLUTION 201—EX- Mrs. MURRAY, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, and Mr. Pacific American Caucus, a bicameral cau- PRESSING THE REGRET OF THE REID of Nevada) submitted the fol- cus of Members of Congress advocating on SENATE FOR THE PASSAGE OF lowing resolution; which was referred behalf of Asian-Americans and Pacific Is- DISCRIMINATORY LAWS to the Committee on the Judiciary: landers, includes 30 Members of Congress; AGAINST THE CHINESE IN AMER- S. RES. 200 Whereas Asian-Americans and Pacific Is- ICA, INCLUDING THE CHINESE Whereas each May, the people of the landers have made history by assuming of- EXCLUSION ACT fice in a number of new and historically sig- United States join together to pay tribute to Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • The End of Chinese Exclusion Part 1 - Background 1924-1943 by Philip Chin
    The End of Chinese Exclusion Part 1 - Background 1924-1943 By Philip Chin Before World War I immigration had reached a high of over a million a year before temporary wartime immigration restrictions had been added by the Immigration Act of 1917. The excuse for these laws was that revolutionaries in Russia had overthrown the Russian imperial government who were then in turn overthrown by the communists. The resulting hysteria of the "Red Scare" led to unjustified fears across the United States that communists would also try to overthrow the American government. Opponents of immigration used the opportunity to attack a whole range of targets with legislation. The Immigration Act of 1917 among other things barred homosexuals, idiots, feeble- minded persons, criminals, epileptics, insane persons, alcoholics, professional beggars, all persons mentally or physically defective, polygamists, and anarchists from coming to the United States. The law also added a literacy test for all prospective immigrants over the age of 16. The law also made it far easier to deport foreign born radicals and suspected communists. Most importantly to most Asians it created a so-called "Asiatic Barred Zone" whose inhabitants were completely banned from immigrating to the United States. Chinese had already been covered by the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and subsequent restrictive laws and Japanese by the "Gentleman's Agreement of 1907" whereby Japan voluntarily restricted Japanese immigration. America's doors were now almost completely closed towards Asian immigration. Page 1 of 5 The 1924 National Origins Act (aka Immigration Act of 1924) had three goals: Immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe would be even more severely restricted.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States
    No. 17-965 In the S upreme Court of the United States DONALD J. TRUMP , PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES , ET AL ., petitioners v. STATE OF HAWAII , ET AL ., respondents On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE EVAN MCMULLIN, ANNE APPLEBAUM, MAX BOOT, LINDA CHAVEZ, ELIOT COHEN, MINDY FINN, JULEANNA GLOVER, NORMAN ORNSTEIN, MICHAEL STEELE, CHARLIE SYKES, AND JERRY TAYLOR IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS R. REEVES ANDERSON JOHN B. BELLINGER , III ARNOLD & PORTER Counsel of Record KAYE SCHOLER LLP ELLIOTT C. MOGUL 370 Seventeenth St. KAITLIN KONKEL Suite 4400 ARNOLD & PORTER Denver, CO 80202 KAYE SCHOLER LLP (303) 863-1000 601 Mass. Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 942-5000 john.bellinger@arnoldporter.com Counsel for Amici Curiae TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Interest of Amici Curiae .............................................. 1 Introduction and Summary of Argument ................... 2 Argument ..................................................................... 4 I. EO-3 contravenes the prohibition on nationality-based discrimination that Congress, with support from almost all Republicans, adopted in 1965 ................................ 5 A. Congress intended to eliminate “all vestiges of discrimination against any national group” from our immigration system ............................................................... 6 1. Members of both parties, and Republicans in particular, strenuously repudiated the discriminatory policies that predated the 1965 Act ......................... 7 2. The 1965 Act rectified missteps in U.S. immigration policy ............................ 12 3. The principles underlying the 1965 Act are now fundamental to our national identity ........................................ 16 B. EO-3 runs afoul of Congress’s nondiscrimination guarantee ......................... 18 II. The President may not substitute his alternative policy judgments for Congress’s comprehensive statutory immigration scheme ..
    [Show full text]
  • Chinese Exclusion and Tong Wars in Portland, Oregon
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 12-2019 More Than Hatchetmen: Chinese Exclusion and Tong Wars in Portland, Oregon Brenda M. Horrocks Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Horrocks, Brenda M., "More Than Hatchetmen: Chinese Exclusion and Tong Wars in Portland, Oregon" (2019). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 7671. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/7671 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@usu.edu. MORE THAN HATCHETMEN: CHINESE EXCLUSION AND TONG WARS IN PORTLAND, OREGON by Brenda M. Horrocks A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in History Approved: ______________________ ____________________ Colleen O’Neill, Ph.D. Angela Diaz, Ph.D. Major Professor Committee Member ______________________ ____________________ Li Guo, Ph.D. Richard S. Inouye, Ph.D. Committee Member Vice Provost for Graduate Studies UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah 2019 ii Copyright © Brenda Horrocks All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT More Than Hatchetmen: Chinese Exclusion and Tong Wars in Portland, Oregon by Brenda M. Horrocks, Master of Arts Utah State University, 2019 Major Professor: Dr. Colleen O’Neill Department: History During the middle to late nineteenth century, Chinese immigration hit record levels in the United States. This led to the growth of Chinatowns across the West Coast.
    [Show full text]
  • 18 Lc 112 0076 Hr 1692
    18 LC 112 0076 House Resolution 1692 By: Representatives Park of the 101st, Nguyen of the 89th, Marin of the 96th, Holcomb of the 81st, Glanton of the 75th, and others A RESOLUTION 1 Recognizing the 75th anniversary of the repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act; and for other 2 purposes. 3 WHEREAS, many Chinese came to the United States in the 19th and 20th centuries, as did 4 people from other countries, in search of the opportunity to create a better life; and 5 WHEREAS, the United States ratified the Burlingame Treaty on October 19, 1868, which 6 permitted the free movement of the Chinese people to, from, and within the United States 7 and made China a "most favored nation"; and 8 WHEREAS, in 1878, the House of Representatives passed a resolution requesting that 9 President Rutherford B. Hayes renegotiate the Burlingame Treaty so that Congress could 10 limit Chinese immigration to the United States; and 11 WHEREAS, on February 22, 1879, the House of Representatives passed the Fifteen 12 Passenger Bill, which permitted only 15 Chinese passengers on any ship coming to the 13 United States; and 14 WHEREAS, on March 1, 1879, President Hayes vetoed the Fifteen Passenger Bill as being 15 incompatible with the Burlingame Treaty; and 16 WHEREAS, on May 9, 1881, the United States ratified the Angell Treaty, which allowed the 17 United States to suspend, but not prohibit, immigration of Chinese laborers, declaring that 18 "Chinese laborers who are now in the United States shall be allowed to go and come of their 19 own free will," and reaffirming that Chinese persons possessed "all the rights, privileges, 20 immunities, and exemptions which are accorded to the citizens and subjects of the most 21 favored nation"; and H.
    [Show full text]
  • Border Enforcement Developments Since 1993 and How to Change CBP
    Border Enforcement Developments Since 1993 and How to Change CBP Daniel E. Martínez The University of Arizona Josiah Heyman The University of Texas at El Paso Jeremy Slack The University of Texas at El Paso August 24, 2020 CMS Essays, https://cmsny.org/publications/border-enforcement-developments-since-1993- and-how-to-change-cbp/ Executive Summary Enforcement along the US-Mexico border has intensified significantly since the early 1990s. Social scientists have documented several consequences of border militarization, including increased border-crosser deaths, the killing of more than 110 people by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents over the past decade, and expanded ethno-racial profiling in southwestern communities by immigration authorities. Less attention has been paid to the pervasive and routine mistreatment migrants experience on a daily basis in CBP custody. This paper traces major developments in border enforcement to three notable initiatives: the “prevention-through-deterrence” strategy, the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Consequence Delivery System, initiated in 2011. Despite the massive buildup in enforcement, CBP has operated with little transparency and accountability to the detriment of migrants. The paper provides an overview of the findings of nongovernmental organizations and social scientists regarding migrant mistreatment while in CBP custody. It then highlights important shifts in migration patterns over the past decade, as well as changes in border enforcement efforts during the Trump administration. It discusses how these transformations affect migrants’ everyday encounters with CBP officials. The paper concludes by providing specific recommendations for improving CBP conduct. Its core theme is the need to emphasize and inculcate lessons of appropriate police behavior, civil rights, and civil liberties in training and recruiting agents and in setting responsibilities of supervisors and administrators.
    [Show full text]
  • Immigration Law and the Myth of Comprehensive Registration
    Immigration Law and the Myth of Comprehensive Registration Nancy Morawetz†* and Natasha Fernández-Silber** This Article identifies an insidious misconception in immigration law and policy: the myth of comprehensive registration. According to this myth — proponents of which include members of the Supreme Court, federal and state officials, and commentators on both sides of the immigration federalism debate — there exists a comprehensive federal alien registration system; this scheme obligates all non-citizens in the United States to register and carry registration cards at all times, or else face criminal sanction. In truth, no such system exists today, nor has one ever existed in American history. Yet, federal agencies like U.S. Border Patrol refer to such a system to justify arrests and increase enforcement statistics; the Department of Justice points to the same mythic system to argue statutory preemption of state immigration laws (rather than confront the discriminatory purpose and effect of those laws); and, states trot it out in an attempt to turn civil immigration offenses into criminal infractions. Although this legal fiction is convenient for a variety of disparate political institutions, it is far from convenient for those who face wrongful arrest and detention based on nothing more than failure to carry proof of status. Individuals in states with aggressive “show me your papers” immigration laws or under the presence of U.S. Border Patrol are particularly at risk. In an effort to dispel this dangerous misconception, this Article reviews the history of America’s experimentation with registration laws and the † Copyright © 2014 Nancy Morawetz and Natasha Fernández-Silber.
    [Show full text]
  • THE 1882 PROJECT a Nonpartisan, Grassroots Effort to Address the Chinese Exclusion Laws
    THE 1882 PROJECT A nonpartisan, grassroots effort to address the Chinese Exclusion Laws What are the Chinese Exclusion Laws? The Chinese Exclusion Laws are a series of eight laws Congress passed between 1870 and 1904 that discriminated against persons of Chinese descent based solely on their race. In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which imposed a ten-year moratorium on Chinese labor immigration, which was later expanded to apply to all persons of Chinese descent. Congress revisited the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1884, 1888, 1892, 1902, and 1904, each time imposing increasingly severe restrictions on immigration and naturalization. Although the Chinese Exclusion Laws were repealed in 1943 as a war measure after China became a World War II ally of the United States, Congress has never expressly acknowledged that the laws singling out and ostracizing Chinese persons violated fundamental civil rights. What significance and impact did the Chinese Exclusion Laws have? The six decades of anti- Chinese legislation contradicted the Declaration of Independence’s basic founding principle that all persons are created equal, and the guarantees of the 14th and 15th amendments. The Congressional debates accompanying the laws condoned anti-Chinese attitudes by frequently portraying Chinese immigrants as “aliens, not to be trusted with political rights” and not able to assimilate in America. By directly targeting persons of Chinese descent for physical and political exclusion, the laws legitimized the political alienation and persecution of Chinese laborers and settlers. In California alone, there were over 200 “roundups” to physically expel Chinese persons. The laws affected the ability of Chinese persons to pursue life in America without fear, and impaired the establishment of Chinese family life in America.
    [Show full text]